Okay, I Give In: My Case for Kathleen Sebelius

Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas

Okay, I totally give in. I’ve resisted writing a Veepstakes post for a long time, but given all the speculation over Tim Kaine, I felt compelled. Quick disclaimer: I do come from the school of thought that the VP is of minimal importance, except as it reflects on the judgment of the candidate. So, having said that, here’s my case for why I think Kathleen Sebelius is the best choice for Barack Obama (now that my previous best choice, Mark Warner, has taken himself out of the running):

For those who don’t know much about her, here’s a quick re-cap:

Sebelius is in her second term as governor of Kansas. She has been in public life in some form or another since the 1980s, although if you count her upbringing, even from a younger age: her father John Gilligan, was governor of Ohio, where Sebelius was born and raised. Additionally, her husband, K. Gary Sebelius, is a federal magistrate judge and son of former Republican Congressman Keith Sebelius.

Sebelius began her public career in the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986. In 1994, she left to run for state Insurance Commissioner, and won (against all odds in a Republican state),

the first time a Democrat had won in more than 100 years. She is credited with bringing the agency out from under the influence of the insurance industry. She refused to take campaign contributions from insurers and blocked the proposed merger of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, the state’s largest health insurer, with an Indiana-based company. The decision by Sebelius marked the first time the corporation had been rebuffed in its acquisition attempts.”

In 2002 she was elected as governor and re-elected in 2006. She has governed in a bi-partisan manner, but has stuck true to her principles as a Dem, and famously recruited a Republican to switch parties and serve as her Lt. Gov.

In November 2005, Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education — all without raising taxes, although she proposed raising sales, property, and income taxes. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing, a useful trait in a state where Republicans have usually controlled the legislature.

She has a wide variety of accomplishments to her name, but among my favorites was her three-in-a-row vetoes of legislation that would set up coal-burning plants in her state, a huge victory for the environment – an issue that she’s on the cutting edge of (especially since Kansas is such a windy state).

Additionally, she made a name for herself on the foreign policy front, criticizing the Iraq War after a series of tornadoes tore up her state and she publicly criticized Bush for taking away equipment and the Kansas National Guard. She has traveled extensively, including to visit Kansas troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Okay, so, at the end of the day, why her?

1) She has been in public life for a long time, is no public policy lightweight, and couldn’t be painted as such (the one exception being foreign affairs). She’s been in governing positions a lot longer than Tim Kaine, for example, and has more notable achievements to her name.

2) Battleground help: born and raised in Ohio, where her father, the former governor still lives. Additionally, she has a vacation home in Michigan where she visits annually.

3) Focus on the economy and domestic issues: nothing says focus on middle America like Kansas.

4) Change: an outsider.

5) Governing: she is the perfect example of strong, competent governance in a bi-partisan fashion, and gets along great with Obama.

6) Warmth: one of the knocks against Obama is his too-cool-for-school-ness, and she can ease off that edge.

7) Catholic: born and raised a Roman Catholic, she can help connect with that group.

Now, some of the cons I can see being raised:

1) No foreign policy experience: agreed, but I think the economy is going to be issue number one, and she can spin her travels abroad to visit troops and recruit business to her state. She’s intelligent and a serious public servant with good judgment.

2) She’s not the most exciting speaker: no, but she generally does much better than her State of the Union response. She’s a perfectly decent speaker, and lack of charisma isn’t going to be an issue with Obama at the top of the ticket.

3) She doesn’t bring Kansas: so what? Did Bush pick Cheney in order to carry Wyoming? Clinton would have won Tennessee without Gore anyway.

4) A woman and a black man on the ticket is too much change: maybe, only one way to find out.

5) And the elephant in the room – if you’re going to pick a woman, why not Hillary?: this is such an outrageously sexist and preposterous argument to make, it’s hard to know where to begin. If anyone starts making that argument in sincerity, you’d almost hope there would be a backlash to it since it’s so inherently offensive. And besides, I think there were a lot of women who were galvanized by the NOTION of a female chief executive that, in the end, I think this would help mobilize more than antagonize.

So, there it is. I’m perfectly open-minded to almost anyone, but if Obama is going with the outside-of-Washington-change-good-governance route, I really hope he strongly considers Sebelius. It would be an ENORMOUS media event if he picked her, and I think she’s more of a public policy heavyweight than Tim Kaine without the years of Washington-insider-baggage the Senate choices have.

Agree? Disagree? Have at it.